Thank You

Error.

So are we in a stock-market bubble or not? I think the answer depends on what data points you're using to support your narrative.

A piece in the most recent edition of the Sunday New York Times starts with this short sentence: "It sure looks like a bubble."

But the article by Jeff Sommer, a longtime editor with the Sunday business section, goes on to focus on a handful of pricey acquisitions and initial public offerings in the social-media, biotech and videogaming sectors as proof that investors are becoming as exuberant as they were during the tech bubble. (The article's headline broadcasts that: "In Some Ways, It's Looking Like 1999 in the Stock Market.")

One has to go low in the piece to read that the bubble talk doesn't apply to the current valuation of the broader stock market.

Barry Ritholtz, a popular financial blogger and columnist with Bloomberg, uses the Times' Sunday piece as a foil for his own view on whether a bubble exists.

BloombergView

"Some of you may not have been around during the 1990s bull market. In its final year—1999—Wall Street was a three-ring circus of insanity," he writes. "The world today is nothing like it was then.

The streets weren't paved with gold, then trading at a pitiful $250 an ounce, but rather cocaine and $2,000 a night escorts."

He points to a Gallup poll in the first quarter concluding that half of all Americans think putting money into the stock market today is a bad idea. "In '99, a whopping 67 percent thought putting money into the stock market was a great idea," he adds.

After reading both accounts, it's pretty clear that those who fear bubbles should tread lightly in the areas discussed in the Times article and feel not quite so put off by the broader stock market.

Meanwhile, Nouriel Roubini, the New York University economist known by the nickname Dr. Doom, has written a piece in which he argues that there's a new set of risks for global investors.

It's hard to summarize the piece since it lists a slew of risks that are subsiding and a slew of other risks that may be taking their place. Best to read the article for yourself.

Project Syndicate

For example, he writes that "thanks to European Central Bank President Mario Draghi's famous "whatever it takes" speech, new financial facilities to stabilize distressed sovereign debtors, and the beginning of a banking union, the eurozone is no longer on the verge of collapse."

But he argues that there are a whole new set of risks, including a growing chance of a hard economic landing in China, policy mistakes as the Federal Reserve exits monetary easing, and a "serious risk that the current conflict in Ukraine will lead to Cold War II—and possibly even a hot war if Russia invades the east of the country."

He even points to a geopolitical risk that isn't getting nearly the ink of a looming Cold War II— that "Asia's terrestrial and maritime territorial disagreements (starting with the disputes between China and Japan) could escalate into outright military conflict."

Thankfully, Roubini does not see any risk of a zombie invasion. Still, it's a long list, and any reader perusing it might be heartened to know that Roubini has made a career by keeping an eye on worst-case scenarios.

Fortune

I'll close with a Fortune article that discusses the reaction of former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Arthur Levitt's view of writer Michael Lewis' contention that the U.S. stock market is rigged.

Levitt tells Fortune's senior editor, Stephen Gandel, that he disagrees with the view laid out in Lewis' book, Flash Boys, that high-frequency trading has been bad for individual investors, adding that he has seen no evidence it has made markets less fair.

Gandel quotes Levitt as saying "I'm not persuaded the average investor is not getting a price that is just as good as a high frequency trader." But Gandel points out that Levitt is also an advisor to one of the biggest high-frequency trading firms, KCG Holdings.